[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27430-27435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11217]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894]


Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Seaman Paper Company of 
Massachusetts, Inc. (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to determine 
whether certain imports of tissue paper products from India are 
circumventing the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper 
products (tissue paper)

[[Page 27431]]

from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 
2005) (Tissue Paper Order).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1823, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 8, 2012, the petitioner submitted a request that the 
Department initiate and conduct an anticircumvention inquiry, pursuant 
to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 
19 CFR 351.225(h), to determine whether imports of tissue paper from 
India made from jumbo rolls (and likely cut-to-length sheets) of tissue 
paper produced in the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order 
on tissue paper from the PRC. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that 
AR Printing and Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (ARPP) is importing into 
India PRC-produced jumbo rolls (and likely cut-to-length sheets) of 
tissue paper for completion or assembly into merchandise of the same 
class or kind as that covered by the antidumping duty order on tissue 
paper from the PRC prior to exporting that merchandise to the United 
States; and that such activity on the part of ARPP constitutes 
circumvention of the PRC tissue paper order.
    On April 12, 2012, the Department requested that the petitioner 
provide additional information and clarification pertinent to its 
anticircumvention inquiry request in order to determine whether it was 
appropriate to grant that request. See Letter to Seaman Paper Company 
of Massachusetts, Inc., dated April 12, 2012. The petitioner provided 
the requested information and clarification on April 16, 2012.

Scope of the Order

    The tissue paper products subject to order are cut-to-length sheets 
of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square 
meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may not be 
bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface decorated or 
printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue paper 
subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 
paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. 
Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by 
banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film 
bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the 
ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may 
consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may 
contain multiple colors and/or styles.
    Tissue paper products subject to this order do not have specific 
classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and appear to be imported under 
one or more of the several different ``basket'' categories, including 
but not necessarily limited to the following subheadings: HTSUS 
4802.30, HTSUS 4802.54, HTSUS 4802.61, HTSUS 4802.62, HTSUS 4802.69, 
HTSUS 4804.39, HTSUS 4806.40, HTSUS 4808.30, HTSUS 4808.90, HTSUS 
4811.90, HTSUS 4823.90, HTSUS 9505.90.40.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following tissue paper 
products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, 
or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications; 
(2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die-
cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable sanitary covers for 
toilet seats; and (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin 
stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes, 
cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 
and 4803.00.40.00).

Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding

Applicable Statute

    Section 781(b) of the Act provides that the Department may find 
circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same 
class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a 
foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In 
conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(b) of the Act, 
the Department relies upon the following criteria: (A) Merchandise 
imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any 
merchandise produced in a foreign country that is subject to an 
antidumping duty order; (B) before importation into the United States, 
such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign 
country from merchandise which is subject to the order or produced in 
the foreign country that is subject to the order; (C) the process of 
assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section 
(B) is minor or insignificant; (D) the value of the merchandise 
produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order 
applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise 
exported to the United States; and (E) the administering authority 
determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order 
or finding. As discussed below, the petitioner presented evidence with 
respect to these criteria.

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind

    The petitioner claims that the tissue paper from India, which it 
alleges ARPP completes or assembles (i.e., by cutting to length (if 
necessary), folding, and packaging) in India before exporting it to the 
United States, is produced from jumbo rolls of PRC-origin tissue paper 
obtained from a tissue paper supplier located in the PRC, and is 
physically identical to the subject merchandise. The petitioner states 
that its claim is supported through an affidavit included in its March 
8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request which shows that by testing 
the ARPP-packaged tissue paper the petitioner obtained from a retail 
store in the United States, an expert in tissue paper products was able 
to determine that the tissue paper was made from PRC-origin tissue 
paper, and that the tissue paper ARPP exports to the United States is 
of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by the 
antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at Exhibit 8, and April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3-10. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the 
petitioner claims that at least some of the tissue paper exported by 
ARPP to the United States is of the same class or kind as the tissue 
paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty 
order.

B. Completion of Merchandise in a Foreign Country

    The petitioner alleges that the tissue paper that is the subject of 
the anticircumvention inquiry request is made from jumbo rolls (and 
likely cut-to-length sheets) of tissue paper produced in the PRC which 
are completed or assembled (i.e., cut-to-length, folded, and packaged) 
into finished tissue paper products in India

[[Page 27432]]

for export to the United States. Based on information contained in 
documentation obtained largely from sources which the petitioner is 
claiming business proprietary treatment, the petitioner asserts that: 
(1) ARPP recently imported tissue paper jumbo rolls from a Chinese 
producer; (2) ARPP exported tissue paper products made from those jumbo 
rolls to the United States; and (3) ARPP's facility in India performs 
only basic converting operations (i.e., cutting, folding and packing 
activities), and not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See 
March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 1, 5, 9, 
10, and 13; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3-5. Based on 
this information, the petitioner concludes that, pursuant to section 
781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, ARPP's tissue paper products are completed 
or assembled in another foreign country (India) from merchandise 
(tissue paper jumbo rolls) which is produced in the foreign country 
(the PRC) that is subject to the antidumping duty order.

C. Minor or Insignificant Process

    The petitioner maintains that for the purpose of section 
781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, conversion of jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
produced in the PRC into cut-to-length tissue paper in India is a 
``minor or insignificant process'' as defined by the Act. According to 
the petitioner, the record evidence in the PRC tissue paper proceeding 
demonstrates that converting jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper 
is a minor or insignificant process. The petitioner states that 
cutting, folding and packaging tissue paper are operations that merely 
impart the final sheet size and form in which the product is delivered 
to the ultimate customer. The petitioner also states that the most 
fundamental aspects of the merchandise, such as the basis weight, 
texture, quality, and other special characteristics that may be 
required if the paper is intended for printing, are established when 
the paper is produced. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the 
types of minor assembly operations described above (and below) with 
respect to converting jumbo rolls is consistent with the information 
obtained in other anticircumvention inquiries involving tissue paper 
products from the PRC.\2\ See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at pages 20-21 and 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic 
of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008) (Quijiang); 
and Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of 
China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011) (Max Fortune 
Vietnam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that converting jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
involves two to three minor processes typically performed by hand in 
India: cutting the tissue to a specific size, folding it (by hand 
typically) and packaging it for export (by hand). The petitioner 
contends that, based on the information obtained from ARPP's Web site, 
ARPP performs only basic converting operations in India (i.e., cutting 
(if necessary), folding and packing activities),\3\ which are minor or 
insignificant processes in the overall production of tissue paper 
products, not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See March 8, 
2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 30 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ARPP's Web site provides photos of only folding and packing 
operations taking place, and its list of production assets does not 
identify any papermaking equipment or machines. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner argues that an analysis of the relevant statutory 
factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further supports its conclusion 
that the processing in India is ``minor or insignificant.'' These 
factors include: (1) The level of investment in the foreign country; 
(2) the level of research and development in the foreign country; (3) 
the nature of the production process in the foreign country; (4) the 
extent of production facilities in the foreign country; and (5) whether 
the value of the processing performed in the foreign country represents 
a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the 
United States.
    The petitioner argues that the processing in India is ``minor and 
insignificant'' as the term is defined in section 781(b)(2) of the Act 
when compared to the complex and capital-intensive processes involved 
in producing lightweight tissue paper from pulp, chemicals, and dyes. 
The petitioner's analysis of the statutory factors follows below.
(1) Level of Investment
    The petitioner claims that the available information concerning 
ARPP's operations indicates that the level of investment is minor or 
insignificant. According to the petitioner, ARPP's operations (i.e., 
importing jumbo rolls from companies in China, cutting to length if 
necessary and using manual labor to hand-fold and package the tissue 
paper before export to the United States) requires at most paper 
cutting machines, tables, chairs and lights, and the investment 
associated with this equipment is not significant. The petitioner 
states that its claim is supported by the information obtained from 
ARPP's Web site (i.e., www.arprintpack.com) and is consistent with the 
Department's determinations in past anticircumvention inquiries of the 
PRC tissue paper order which involved respondents with similar 
converting operations (i.e., Quijiang and Max Fortune Vietnam). See 
March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 26-27, and 
Exhibit 1. Accordingly, the petitioner concludes that the level of 
investment in ARPP's converting operations is minor or insignificant.
(2) Level of Research and Development
    The petitioner maintains that there is no evidence reasonably 
available which indicates research and development (R&D) is taking 
place in India. In fact, the petitioner claims that information on 
ARPP's Web site indicates that ARPP is not a center for R&D and that 
any R&D which may take place is handled by ARPP's U.S. affiliate, Gem 
Stone Printing Inc. The petitioner also states that tissue paper 
production involves mature technologies and processes, and any 
technical developments are refinements rather than new technologies. 
Converting operations also reflect mature technologies, according to 
the petitioner, and the Indian converting operations involve hand-
folding and packaging, which are inherently mature processes. The 
petitioner states that this claim is also consistent with the 
Department's determinations addressing the level of R&D in the Quijiang 
and Max Fortune Vietnam anticircumvention inquiries. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 27-28, and Exhibit 1.
(3) Nature of the Production Process in India
    The petitioner states that information from ARPP's Web site 
indicates that ARPP's operations in India are designed to convert (cut 
and/or package) the tissue paper imported from the PRC without altering 
the fundamental characteristics of the basis weight, quality and 
texture of the tissue paper that are established during the papermaking 
process. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the information from 
ARPP's Web site shows that its operations are limited to PRC-origin 
jumbo rolls and sheets being cut to size (if necessary), and folded and 
packed by hand prior to export. As such, they involve unskilled manual 
labor in contrast to skilled labor required for

[[Page 27433]]

papermaking. While cutting jumbo rolls into sheets of tissue paper may 
involve some skill and machinery, according to the petitioner, the 
nature of this activity is not complex. Therefore, the petitioner 
contends that ARPP's ``production process'' is minor or insignificant 
and is consistent with the Department's determinations in Quijiang and 
Max Fortune Vietnam. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at pages 29-30 and Exhibit 1.
(4) Extent of Production Facilities in India
    The petitioner asserts, based on information obtained from ARPP's 
Web site, that ARPP's facility provides ample storage for cut tissue 
paper and that it does not believe that ARPP has machinery in place to 
make tissue paper. According to the petitioner, the information on 
ARPP's Web site demonstrates that ARPP is not a paper mill, as it 
indicates that ARPP's production capabilities focus exclusively on 
printing and converting a variety of paper products, but not on paper-
making from pulp. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that ARPP's 
facilities associated with converting tissue paper products are 
minimal. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 
30-31, and Exhibit 1.
(5) Value of Processing in India Compared to Value of Tissue Paper 
Imported Into United States
    The petitioner states that the simple completion or assembly 
processes performed by ARPP in India (i.e., cutting (if necessary), 
folding (by hand) and packing (also by hand) the tissue paper from the 
PRC) necessarily represents a small proportion of the value of the 
finished tissue paper product shipped to the United States. The 
petitioner also states that this conclusion is supported by the 
Department's determination in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, 
in which the Department determined that tissue paper converting 
processes are minor or insignificant.\4\ See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, the 
petitioner states that the Department determined that the conversion 
processes of the respondent Quijiang (i.e., allegedly the same type 
of conversion processes described above for ARPP) were minor or 
insignificant for purposes of the statute, and that inclusion of the 
resulting tissue paper in the order was appropriate to avoid 
circumvention of the order. See Certain Tissue Paper Products From 
the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and 
Extension of Final Determination, 73 FR 21580 (April 22, 2008) 
(which was upheld in Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008)). In 
addition, the petitioner notes that the activities performed by 
Quijiang included processing such as dip-dying, which would add 
greater amounts of value than merely converting jumbo rolls and 
sheets of tissue paper. In contrast, the petitioner contends that 
ARPP is only converting the imported jumbo rolls and sheets without 
performing additional processing (such as dip-dying). See March 18, 
2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in PRC

    For the reasons stated in section C.5. above and for the purpose of 
section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the petitioner contends that the value 
of the processing performed by ARPP is a minor portion of the cost of 
the completed merchandise. According to the petitioner, in this case, 
that analysis necessarily implies that the value of the PRC-origin 
jumbo rolls and cut-to-length sheets used by ARPP is a significant 
portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United 
States, because there are no other operations or components to take 
into account. In addition, the petitioner states that this conclusion 
is supported by the Department's determination in the Quijiang 
anticircumvention inquiry, in which the Department determined that the 
value of the PRC-origin jumbo rolls constitutes a great majority of the 
value of the finished merchandise. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention 
inquiry request at pages 33-34.

E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary

    The petitioner states that, pursuant to sections 781(b)(1)(E) and 
(b)(3) of the Act, additional factors must be considered in the 
Department's decision to issue a finding of circumvention regarding 
imports of tissue paper from India. These factors are discussed below.

Pattern of Trade

    Section 781(b)(3)(A) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account patterns of trade when making a decision in an 
anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, at the time the 
PRC tissue paper petition was filed in February 2004, the only source 
of imports of tissue paper products was the PRC. Based on ARPP's Web 
site information, publicly available ship manifest (PIERS) data and 
Global Trade Information Service (GTIS) data, the petitioner contends 
that a few months after the petition was filed, ARPP was established 
and it began commercial shipments in 2005. The petitioner also contends 
that the PIERS data show a pattern of trade since the initiation of the 
PRC tissue paper proceeding that is characteristic of circumvention 
(i.e., that India rapidly emerged from being a source of no imports to 
being a source of substantial and growing imports of tissue paper). See 
March 18, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 35-36, and 
Exhibit 1 and 6; and the April 16, submission at Exhibit 2.

Affiliation

    Section 781(b)(3)(B) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise is 
affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise to assemble or 
complete in the foreign country that is subsequently imported into the 
United States when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. The 
petitioner points out that ARPP is affiliated through common ownership 
with Stone Sapphire, a Chinese company identified on ARPP's Web site as 
manufacturing and sourcing tissue paper products in the PRC. Although 
the petitioner acknowledges that the degree of Stone Sapphire's 
involvement in shipments of PRC-origin tissue paper to ARPP is not 
currently known, the petitioner claims that the history of 
circumvention in this proceeding provides good cause to initiate a 
formal inquiry and develop a formal record of information from ARPP and 
its affiliates. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention request at pages 
36-37, and Exhibits 1 and 2; Quijiang, 73 FR 57593; and Max Fortune 
Vietnam, 76 FR 47551, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 4.

Subsequent Import Volume

    Section 781(b)(3)(C) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account whether imports of the merchandise into the foreign country 
have increased after the initiation of the investigation, which 
resulted in the issuance of the order, when making a decision in an 
anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, given that India 
was not a source of tissue paper products in February 2004 (i.e., the 
time when the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of tissue paper 
from the PRC was initiated), it is reasonable to infer that jumbo rolls 
and cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper were not being shipped to 
India for completion or assembly into finished tissue paper products 
because Chinese producers and exporters had no restrictions on their 
imports into the United States. In addition, the petitioner notes that 
ARPP did not exist in 2004, during the time the original LTFV 
investigation was initiated and

[[Page 27434]]

conducted. Therefore, before that time, ARPP could not have imported 
tissue paper jumbo rolls and sheets from the PRC. However, since the 
initiation of the original investigation, imports of Chinese tissue 
paper into India have increased steadily and substantially. 
Specifically, the petitioner states that the GTIS data show that 
imports of jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue paper into India from the 
PRC were very small through the third quarter of 2004 (i.e., the months 
after the petitioner filed the original petition). However, since that 
time, the petitioner claims that the GTIS data show that the volume of 
imports into India from the PRC has steadily and significantly 
increased. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at 
pages 37-38.

Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request, as supplemented on April 16, 2012, 
the Department determines that a formal anticircumvention inquiry is 
warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), the Department finds 
that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an 
order cannot be determined based solely upon the request and the 
descriptions of the merchandise and the Department will notify by mail 
all parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of 
a scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of 
an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will 
include a description of the product that is the subject of the 
anticircumvention inquiry--in this case, cut-to-length tissue paper 
that has the characteristics identified in the scope of the order, as 
provided above--and an explanation of the reasons for the Department's 
decision to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry, as provided below.
    With regard to whether the merchandise from India is of the same 
class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner 
has presented information indicating that the merchandise being 
imported from India is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper 
produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. 
The merchandise from India shares physical characteristics with the 
merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 8-9.
    With regard to completion of merchandise in a foreign country, the 
petitioner has presented information that the tissue paper exported 
from India is tissue paper of PRC origin which is further processed in 
India. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 
5, 8, 9, and 10; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 2-10.
    With regard to whether the conversion of PRC jumbo rolls and/or 
sheets of tissue paper into cut-to-length tissue paper in India is a 
``minor or insignificant process,'' the petitioner addressed the 
relevant statutory factors used to determine whether the processing of 
jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper is minor or insignificant 
with the best information available to it at the time of its 
anticircumvention inquiry request. The petitioner relied on information 
obtained primarily from publicly available sources and affidavits for 
this purpose. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at 
Exhibits 1, 8, 9, and 13.
    We find that the information presented by the petitioner supports 
its request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, 
the petitioner provided evidence for each of the criteria enumerated in 
the statute, including the following: (1) The nature of ARPP's 
operations (i.e., limited to converting operations) suggest little 
investment has been made in ARPP; (2) because ARPP's U.S. affiliate 
conducts R&D, it is reasonable to infer that any R&D takes place in the 
United States and not in India; (3) the cutting, folding and packaging 
activities (i.e., the converting process) performed by ARPP do not 
alter the fundamental characteristics of the tissue paper and, 
therefore, reflect a production process which is minor or 
insignificant; (4) ARPP's basic converting operations suggest a 
significantly lower level of investment in production assets than that 
required by the capital-intensive nature of the papermaking process 
and, thus ARPP's facilities are minimal; and (5) ARPP's limited 
operations suggest that converting tissue paper adds little value to 
the merchandise imported into the United States.
    With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, 
the petitioner relied on the information and arguments in the ``minor 
or insignificant process'' portion of its anticircumvention request to 
indicate that the value of the PRC jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue 
paper is significant relative to the total value of finished 
merchandise exported to the United States. We find that this 
information adequately meets the requirements of this factor, as 
discussed above.
    Finally, the petitioner argued that the Department should also 
consider the pattern of trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 
volume as factors in determining whether to initiate the 
anticircumvention inquiry. The import information submitted by the 
petitioner indicates that U.S. imports of tissue paper from India, as 
well as Indian imports of tissue paper from China, rose significantly 
after the initiation of the investigation and the establishment of 
ARPP. In addition, the petitioner provides information showing ARPP's 
affiliation with a known producer of tissue paper in the PRC, the 
timing of ARPP's establishment, and that the nature of ARPP's 
operations reflect an intention to shift completion of merchandise 
subject to the PRC tissue paper order from the PRC to India.
    Accordingly, we are initiating a formal anticircumvention inquiry 
concerning the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products 
from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary 
affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of 
estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry 
of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry.
    The Department is focusing its analysis of the significance of the 
production process in India on the single company identified by the 
petitioner, namely ARPP, in its March 8, 2012, anticircumvention 
inquiry request. If the Department receives a formal request from an 
interested party regarding potential circumvention by other Indian 
companies involved in processing PRC jumbo rolls and/or sheets for 
export to the United States within sufficient time, we will consider 
conducting the inquiries concurrently.
    The Department will, following consultation with interested 
parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the 
issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 
300 days of the date of publication of this initiation consistent with 
section 781(f) of the Act.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).


[[Page 27435]]


     Dated: May 3, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-11217 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P